Search (81 results, page 1 of 5)

0.060214132 = product of:
  0.0903212 = sum of:
    0.0064847493 = weight(_text_:information in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0064847493 = score(doc=1166,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.083984874 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
    0.027179992 = weight(_text_:networks in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027179992 = score(doc=1166,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20804176 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.13064681 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
    0.0382371 = weight(_text_:united in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0382371 = score(doc=1166,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24675635 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.15495893 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
    0.018419355 = product of:
      0.03683871 = sum of:
        0.03683871 = weight(_text_:states in 1166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03683871 = score(doc=1166,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24220218 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.152099 = fieldWeight in 1166, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1166)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(4/6)

Abstract

This article presents an overview of the LEAF project (Linking and Exploring Authority Files)1, which has set out to provide a framework for international, collaborative work in the sector of authority data with respect to authority control. Elaborating the virtues of authority control in today's Web environment is an almost futile exercise, since so much has been said and written about it in the last few years.2 The World Wide Web is generally understood to be poorly structured-both with regard to content and to locating required information. Highly structured databases might be viewed as small islands of precision within this chaotic environment. Though the Web in general or any particular structured database would greatly benefit from increased authority control, it should be noted that our following considerations only refer to authority control with regard to databases of "memory institutions" (i.e., libraries, archives, and museums). Moreover, when talking about authority records, we exclusively refer to personal name authority records that describe a specific person. Although different types of authority records could indeed be used in similar ways to the ones presented in this article, discussing those different types is outside the scope of both the LEAF project and this article. Personal name authority records-as are all other "authorities"-are maintained as separate records and linked to various kinds of descriptive records. Name authority records are usually either kept in independent databases or in separate tables in the database containing the descriptive records. This practice points at a crucial benefit: by linking any number of descriptive records to an authorized name record, the records related to this entity are collocated in the database. Variant forms of the authorized name are referenced in the authority records and thus ensure the consistency of the database while enabling search and retrieval operations that produce accurate results. On one hand, authority control may be viewed as a positive prerequisite of a consistent catalogue; on the other, the creation of new authority records is a very time consuming and expensive undertaking. As a consequence, various models of providing access to existing authority records have emerged: the Library of Congress and the French National Library (Bibliothèque nationale de France), for example, make their authority records available to all via a web-based search service.3 In Germany, the Personal Name Authority File (PND, Personennamendatei4) maintained by the German National Library (Die Deutsche Bibliothek, Frankfurt/Main) offers a different approach to shared access: within a closed network, participating institutions have online access to their pooled data. The number of recent projects and initiatives that have addressed the issue of authority control in one way or another is considerable.5 Two important current initiatives should be mentioned here: The Name Authority Cooperative (NACO) and Virtual International Authority File (VIAF).
NACO was established in 1976 and is hosted by the Library of Congress. At the beginning of 2003, nearly 400 institutions were involved in this undertaking, including 43 institutions from outside the United States.6 Despite the enormous success of NACO and the impressive annual growth of the initiative, there are requirements for participation that form an obstacle for many institutions: they have to follow the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR2) and employ the MARC217 data format. Participating institutions also have to belong to either OCLC (Online Computer Library Center) or RLG (Research Libraries Group) in order to be able to contribute records, and they have to provide a specified minimum number of authority records per year. A recent proof of concept project of the Library of Congress, OCLC and the German National Library-Virtual International Authority File (VIAF)8-will, in its first phase, test automatic linking of the records of the Library of Congress Name Authority File (LCNAF) and the German Personal Name Authority File by using matching algorithms and software developed by OCLC. The results are expected to form the basis of a "Virtual International Authority File". The project will then test the maintenance of the virtual authority file by employing the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH)9 to harvest the metadata for new, updated, and deleted records. When using the "Virtual International Authority File" a cataloguer will be able to check the system to see whether the authority record he wants to establish already exists. The final phase of the project will test possibilities for displaying records in the preferred language and script of the end user. Currently, there are still some clear limitations associated with the ways in which authority records are used by memory institutions. One of the main problems has to do with limited access: generally only large institutions or those that are part of a library network have unlimited online access to permanently updated authority records. Smaller institutions outside these networks usually have to fall back on less efficient ways of obtaining authority data, or have no access at all. Cross-domain sharing of authority data between libraries, archives, museums and other memory institutions simply does not happen at present. Public users are, by and large, not even aware that such things as name authority records exist and are excluded from access to these information resources.

0.04532516 = product of:
  0.13597548 = sum of:
    0.09176904 = weight(_text_:united in 5746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09176904 = score(doc=5746,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24675635 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.37190145 = fieldWeight in 5746, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5746)
    0.044206448 = product of:
      0.088412896 = sum of:
        0.088412896 = weight(_text_:states in 5746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.088412896 = score(doc=5746,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24220218 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.3650376 = fieldWeight in 5746, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5746)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

0.030457443 = product of:
  0.091372326 = sum of:
    0.0764742 = weight(_text_:united in 191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0764742 = score(doc=191,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24675635 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.30991787 = fieldWeight in 191, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=191)
    0.0148981325 = product of:
      0.029796265 = sum of:
        0.029796265 = weight(_text_:22 in 191) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029796265 = score(doc=191,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 191, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=191)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

International efforts to provide authority control include the work of IFLA, the AUTHOR Project funded by the European Commission, and related work conducted under the auspices of the ICA/CDS. IFLA developed the guidelines Form and Structure of Corporate Headings, documented the formulation of names along the lines of national origin in its publication Names of Persons, and published Guidelines for Authority and Reference Entries. Attention has shifted from a single authority record for each entity that would be shared internationally through the exchange of records to linking parallel authority records for the same entity. The access control of the future will account for difference in cataloging rules, transliteration standards, and cultural differences within the same language as well as for the need for different languages and scripts and will enable users to display the script and form of a heading that they expect. Project AUTHOR is a shared set of resource national authority files that used selections from the authority files of France, the United Kingdom, Spain, Portugal, and Belgium. The prototype tested an adaptation of Z39.50 server software for authority records and displays for user interface. An international standard for authority control records has been developed for corporate bodies, persons, and families. Through joint meetings efforts have been synchronized to develop authority control at the international level.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.027987381 = product of:
  0.08396214 = sum of:
    0.007487943 = weight(_text_:information in 5687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007487943 = score(doc=5687,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5687, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5687)
    0.0764742 = weight(_text_:united in 5687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0764742 = score(doc=5687,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24675635 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.30991787 = fieldWeight in 5687, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5687)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

InterParty is a project that aims to develop a mechanism that will enable the interoperation of identifiers for "parties" or persons (authors, publishers, etc. - persons and corporate bodies in library authority files) across multiple domains. Partners represent the book industry, rights management, libraries, and identifier and technology communities, united by their perception of a common benefit from interoperation in terms of access to "common metadata" held by other members to improve the quality of their own data. The InterParty solution proposes a distributed network of members who provide access to "common metadata," defined as information in the public domain, sufficient to identify and distinguish the "public identity" of a person. At a minimum the InterParty network would provide access to multiple domains of data about persons, including multiple library authority files, author licensing data files, etc. It will also add value by providing a facility for linking records between different data files by means of a "link record." Link records will assert that an identity recorded in one database is the same as another identity recorded in another database. Linked data will be mutually enriching and therefore more reliable and supportive of accurate disambiguation of persons within and between databases. InterParty has potential to develop a common system that supports both the emerging needs of e-commerce and the traditional requirements of library authority control.

0.018119995 = product of:
  0.10871997 = sum of:
    0.10871997 = weight(_text_:networks in 5678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10871997 = score(doc=5678,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.20804176 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.52258724 = fieldWeight in 5678, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5678)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Explicit authority control of works is essentially non-existent. Our catalogs are built on a principle of controlling headings, and primarily headings for names of authors. Our syndetic structure creates a spider's web of networked relationships among forms of headings, but it ends there, despite the potential richness of depth among bibliographic entities. Effective authority control of works could yield richness in the catalog that would enhance retrieval capabilities. Works are considered to constitute the intellectual content of informative artifacts that may be collected and ordered for retrieval. In a 1992 study the author examined a random sample of works drawn from the catalog of the Georgetown University Library. For each progenitor work, an instantiation network (also referred to as a bibliographic family) was constituted. A detailed analysis of the linkages that would be required for authority control of these networks is reviewed here. A new study is also presented, in which Library of Congress authority records for the works in this sample are sought and analyzed. Results demonstrate a near total lack of control, with only 5.6% of works for which authority records were found. From a sample of 410 works, of which nearly half have instantiation networks, only 23 works could be said to have implicit authority control. However, many instantiation networks are made up of successive derivations that can be implicitly linked through collocation. The difficult work of explicitly linking instantiations comes with title changes, translations, and containing relations. The empirical evidence in the present study suggests that explicit control of expressions will provide the best control over instantiation networks because it is instantiations such as translations, abridgments, and adaptations that require explicit linking.

0.013004894 = product of:
  0.039014682 = sum of:
    0.018157298 = weight(_text_:information in 167) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018157298 = score(doc=167,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 167, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=167)
    0.020857384 = product of:
      0.04171477 = sum of:
        0.04171477 = weight(_text_:22 in 167) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04171477 = score(doc=167,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 167, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=167)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

While many catalogers are using the Web to find the information they need to perform authority work quickly and accurately, the full potential of the Web to assist catalogers in name authority work has yet to be realized. The ever-growing nature of the Web means that available information for creating personal name, corporate name, and other types of headings will increase. In this article, we examine ways in which simple and effective Web searching can save catalogers time and money in the process of authority work. In addition, questions involving evaluating authority information found on the Web are explored.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.0127457 = product of:
  0.0764742 = sum of:
    0.0764742 = weight(_text_:united in 2506) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0764742 = score(doc=2506,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24675635 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.30991787 = fieldWeight in 2506, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2506)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Content

This paper looks at approaches to name authority control in repository contexts and describes the work of the Names project, which has been funded to investigate issues surrounding the identification of individuals and institutions within repositories of research outputs in the United Kingdom. The problem of uniquely identifying authors has been with us ever since books have been catalogued. National libraries have been creating name authority files for authors of books for many years, starting with card catalogues and now maintaining electronic files in MARC format. However, authority files for the creators of journal articles do not tend to exist in library systems. The increasing use of subject-based and institutional repositories to hold working papers, reports, research data, and pre-refereed and post-referred versions of articles has led to a corresponding rise in the number of authors identified in such systems. Without having a means of uniquely and unambiguously identifying the creators of materials in repositories, it becomes difficult to be sure whether all the materials related to a particular author will be correctly associated with that individual. Names of authors may be entered in more than one way, or more than one author may have exactly the same name. This article looks at recent attempts to address this problem in the repository environment and goes on to explain the approach that is planned to be taken in the Names project.

0.010871997 = product of:
  0.06523198 = sum of:
    0.06523198 = weight(_text_:networks in 5667) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06523198 = score(doc=5667,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20804176 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.31355235 = fieldWeight in 5667, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5667)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Forty years ago the ICCP in Paris laid the foundations of international co-operation in descriptive cataloging without explicitly speaking of authority control. Some of the factors in the evolution of authority control are the development of catalogs (from card catalog to local automation, to today's OPAC on the Web) and services provided by libraries (from individual service to local users to system networks, to the World Wide Web), as well as international agreements on cataloging (from Paris Principles to the UBC programme, to the report on Mandatory data elements for internationally shared resource authority records). This evolution progressed from the principle of uniform heading to the definition of authority entries and records, and from the responsibility of national bibliographic agencies for the form of the names of their own authors to be shared internationally to the concept of authorized equivalent heading. Some issues of the present state are the persisting differences among national rules and the aim of respecting both local culture and language and international readability.

0.010446835 = product of:
  0.031340506 = sum of:
    0.010483121 = weight(_text_:information in 120) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010483121 = score(doc=120,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 120, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=120)
    0.020857384 = product of:
      0.04171477 = sum of:
        0.04171477 = weight(_text_:22 in 120) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04171477 = score(doc=120,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 120, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=120)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Authority control has long been an important part of the cataloging process. However, few studies have been conducted examining how librarians learn about it. Research conducted to date suggests that many librarians learn about authority control on the job rather than in formal classes. To offer an introduction to authority control information for librarians, an annotated bibliography is provided. It includes monographs, articles and papers, electronic discussion groups, Web sites related to professional conferences, additional Web sites related to authority control, and training offered through the Name Authority Cooperative Program and the Subject Authority Cooperative Program. A summary of possible future trends in authority control is also provided.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.010446835 = product of:
  0.031340506 = sum of:
    0.010483121 = weight(_text_:information in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010483121 = score(doc=180,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 180, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=180)
    0.020857384 = product of:
      0.04171477 = sum of:
        0.04171477 = weight(_text_:22 in 180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04171477 = score(doc=180,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 180, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=180)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

A variety of information communities have developed metadata schemes to meet the needs of their own users. The ability of libraries to incorporate and use multiple metadata schemes in current library systems will depend on the compatibility of imported data with existing catalog data. Authority control will play an important role in metadata interoperability. In this article, I discuss factors for successful authority control in current library catalogs, which include operation in a well-defined and bounded universe, application of principles and standard practices to access point creation, reference to authoritative lists, and bibliographic record creation by highly trained individuals. Metadata characteristics and environmental models are examined and the likelihood of successful authority control is explored for a variety of metadata environments.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.00896894 = product of:
  0.05381364 = sum of:
    0.05381364 = weight(_text_:networks in 5042) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05381364 = score(doc=5042,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20804176 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.2586675 = fieldWeight in 5042, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=5042)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Work on a prototype of the new Soggettario (the main Italian subject heading list) has begun in October 2004 at the Central National Library of Florence (BNCF). BNCF is involving in the renewal of the most used subject indexing tool of Italian libraries. The project had already produced a Feasibility Study, representing a reference for the works which have started recently. An Italian abstract of the Feasibility Study, and more documentation, can be found in the BCNF website at the Web address <http://www bncf.firenze.sbn.it/progetti/>. Together with the project team and the BNCF staff, some young external consultants are working, who are focusing on the terminological component of the system, namely the prototype of the Thesaurus. At the same time, documents are produced which define procedures, establish criteria, and give guidelines. The list of items by which the prototype started consists of: - the terms included in the updates provided by the Italian National Bibliography (BNI) during the period 1986-1998 (already published in the form of lists); - the items introduced from 1999 to 2005 - other items introduced in the past years but never recorded; - some terms from the Soggettario (1956) or from BNI updates (1956-19S5), being especially outdated and needing revision. In building the semantic networks and the hierarchies, and in making the terminological control, of course, more terms have to be included, which come from the Soggettario, the BNI and other authoritative sources both catalographic (various indexing tools) and lexicographic (general and special directories). DDC numbers are also related to the terms in the Thesaurus. The prototype, to be completed in April 2006, will include a sample of terms for each disciplinary area. About 5000 terms will have a complete structure, but 6000 more will be included in the Thesaurus in order to fill the semantic networks, and marked with a different working status. For the prototype the AgroVoc software is used, which has been provided by FAO and adapted by the BNCF computing staff in order to match the specific requirements of the project. Thanks to the potential of this software, we intend to test in future on the multilingual side of terminology. Such work is likely to begin by testing links to the corresponding forms used by the Library of Congress. We are currently beginning to focus on this, and we wish that external parties be involved which are concerned with multilingual terminology in more or less specialistic contexts. We will follow the road of conventions with Italian universities, which could cooperate to this development through their students and graded students. We are also looking at the developments in the work of the British BSI working group on standards for thesauri convened by Stella Dextre Clarke.

0.006952462 = product of:
  0.04171477 = sum of:
    0.04171477 = product of:
      0.08342954 = sum of:
        0.08342954 = weight(_text_:22 in 5819) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08342954 = score(doc=5819,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 5819, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5819)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

24. 5.2001 19:22:37

0.006139785 = product of:
  0.03683871 = sum of:
    0.03683871 = product of:
      0.07367742 = sum of:
        0.07367742 = weight(_text_:states in 5675) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07367742 = score(doc=5675,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24220218 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.304198 = fieldWeight in 5675, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5675)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The Name Authority Cooperative (NACO), founded in 1976, now encompasses some 395 institutions that have collectively developed and maintained a database of more than 2,000,000 authority records in addition to the more than 3,500,000 records created by Library of Congress staff. The NACO family of libraries is expanding at a rate of about 50 new members annually. The membership include institutions from all but four of the 50 U.S. states and 43 institutions in 16 countries within Europe, Africa, Oceania, Asia, and Latin America. The NACO model has changed over time to create more cost-effective and user-friendly policies and procedures to meet participants' needs. Increased recognition, especially by library administrators, of the value of authority control also encouraged NACO to flourish. This presentation explains membership requirements, benefits to the participants, as well as the role of the Library of Congress which serves as secretariat to NACO and oversees a variety of training and documentation activities to support program operations. One of the NACO's unique features - the opportunity to participate via a "Funnel Project" in which a group of institutions band together - is also described. Internationally, as the trend towards adopting AACR and MARC 21 increases, the number of NACO partners outside the U.S. also increases. For countries where other standards prevail or where English is not the official language, NACO can serve as a model to consider to provide a framework for a national program while awaiting longer-term development of a more global approach to authority control.

0.005959253 = product of:
  0.035755515 = sum of:
    0.035755515 = product of:
      0.07151103 = sum of:
        0.07151103 = weight(_text_:22 in 6888) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07151103 = score(doc=6888,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6888, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6888)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

26.12.2011 12:30:22

0.005959253 = product of:
  0.035755515 = sum of:
    0.035755515 = product of:
      0.07151103 = sum of:
        0.07151103 = weight(_text_:22 in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07151103 = score(doc=131,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 131, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=131)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Content

Vortrag anlässlich des Workshops: "Extending the multilingual capacity of The European Library in the EDL project Stockholm, Swedish National Library, 22-23 November 2007".

0.005959253 = product of:
  0.035755515 = sum of:
    0.035755515 = product of:
      0.07151103 = sum of:
        0.07151103 = weight(_text_:22 in 1266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07151103 = score(doc=1266,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1266, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1266)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Content

Vortrag anlässlich des Workshops: "Extending the multilingual capacity of The European Library in the EDL project Stockholm, Swedish National Library, 22-23 November 2007".

0.005959253 = product of:
  0.035755515 = sum of:
    0.035755515 = product of:
      0.07151103 = sum of:
        0.07151103 = weight(_text_:22 in 1290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07151103 = score(doc=1290,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 1290, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1290)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Content

Vortrag anlässlich des Workshops: "Extending the multilingual capacity of The European Library in the EDL project Stockholm, Swedish National Library, 22-23 November 2007".

0.004991962 = product of:
  0.029951772 = sum of:
    0.029951772 = weight(_text_:information in 5490) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029951772 = score(doc=5490,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.38790947 = fieldWeight in 5490, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5490)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

We aim to trace the scenario of the use of controlled vocabularies as tools of research and work in the scope of representation and retrieval of information in institutions that have archival collections, in order to highlight the need for greater emphasis on the subject of representation of archival information in the academic field, increasing the visibility for the study and analysis of the collections in question and their contents, relevant to the information society. We investigate the current scenario of the use of controlled vocabularies in the archival collections of Rio de Janeiro, the theoretical-methodological changes arising from the impacts of information technologies on analysis, representation, such as classification and indexing, content retrieval, information needs in the contemporary world. The representation of information is associated with classification and retrieval of information to the organization of knowledge in information science. There is a gap in the archival area regarding the expression representation of information from the description of the nineteenth century. As for the theoretical-methodological aspect, there was a theoretical survey of the representation of information in publications in the interdisciplinary areas; as to the op-erational methodology, questionnaires were applied to information agencies on the use of controlled vocabularies, in relation to the treatment of information in archival collections. We conclude by demonstrating the importance of adopting the concept of information representation in archives, using controlled vocabularies associated with new information technologies and informational ecology, consolidating the area as a scientific and interdisciplinary field for information science.

0.00399357 = product of:
  0.023961417 = sum of:
    0.023961417 = weight(_text_:information in 5480) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023961417 = score(doc=5480,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043984205 = queryNorm
        0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 5480, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5480)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Libraries are bridges between information and the library user in the context of information retrieval. Library users want to access information resources according to their topic. Therefore, it is important to create subject entries in bibliographic records. If subject added entries and their redirects are done correctly, it will make it easier for users to access the information they are looking for. In this article the collaborative studies and projects made in Turkey are being discussed.

0.0039728354 = product of:
  0.023837011 = sum of:
    0.023837011 = product of:
      0.047674023 = sum of:
        0.047674023 = weight(_text_:22 in 249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047674023 = score(doc=249,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043984205 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 249, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=249)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22